The Red Handkerchief...

[Sally]

It does not exclude him from being a potential killer, anyhow.

But he's not on Wikipedia's list! Even Joseph Silver is on the list, for heaven's sake, and we can't even be sure he was in the country at the time; let alone Whitechapel.

Evidently, Crossmere beats him hands down in that respect.

What you need, Fish, is a good old-fashioned suspect book. That might put him on the list.

[Sally]

Sally brought up Lechmere, Ben, not me. And I discuss whatever I want to discuss, as long as it is related to the thread topic.

You know, I did - only in passing, it must be said.

Oops - my bad. Sorry everyone

[Fisherman]

Hutchinson can't have been 'cleared of suspicion' because so far as we know he was never a suspect to begin with.

Those two statements do not work together: Hutch CAN NOT have been cleared, since AS FAR AS WE KNOW he was never a suspect...?

The distinction is important - as far as we know. And what we don´t know, we don´t conclude from.

Is it Evans or Sugden who says that the fact that Abberline interrogated Hutchinson points to an early suspicion of possible guilt?

I think that is a far wiser way to go - pointing to the facts, but not selling the skin until the bear is shot.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

But he's not on Wikipedia's list! Even Joseph Silver is on the list, for heaven's sake, and we can't even be sure he was in the country at the time; let alone Whitechapel.

Evidently, Crossmere beats him hands down in that respect.

What you need, Fish, is a good old-fashioned suspect book. That might put him on the list.

Lechmere beats him hands down in every respect, Sally, when it comes to being a good suspect.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi...
Mrs Long was at the crime scene, so was Cadoche. so were the three men leaving the club near Church passage..are these suspects...?.....
I appreciate that my answers, may not be up to what you consider me capable of Ben. but after around 15 years of discussing the subject, one tires of the same ''I am right , your wrong'' attitude...that is why I have been light on posts for months .
Regards Richard.

[Mr Lucky]

Apparently, but was he there before, during, or after the crime took place.

Hi Wickerman,

Yes, that's the point. By definition, for Hutchinson to be the killer he would have to have been there before the murder started, to be at the scene whilst the murder was actually taking place and indeed there sometime afterward, to burn her clothes, scatter her innards all over the place, melt the spout off her kettle, etc, basically to provide all those helpful clues the killer had been leaving us, post Nichols.

[c.d.]

Hello Fish,

Hutchinson may or may not have been a "suspect". He was most certainly a "person of interest" (unless the police at the time were complete imbeciles).

A person of interest can be freed from suspicion (as in having a verifiable alibi) or he can become a suspect when his actions and answers don't seem to jive.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish,

Hutchinson may or may not have been a "suspect". He was most certainly a "person of interest" (unless the police at the time were complete imbeciles).

A person of interest can be freed from suspicion (as in having a verifiable alibi) or he can become a suspect when his actions and answers don't seem to jive.

c.d.

Very true, c. d.

And I personally don´t think the police were imbeciles.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Very true, c. d.

And I personally don´t think the police were imbeciles.

The best,
Fisherman

Nor do I.

c.d.

[Hunter]

Is it Evans or Sugden who says that the fact that Abberline interrogated Hutchinson points to an early suspicion of possible guilt?

It points to a witness being considered important enough that the senior detective should be notified and allowed to interrogate and evaluate the witness -- just as was done with Israel Schwartz -- nothing more or less, unless further interrogation reveals something suspicious about the witness, which didn't seem to happen in either instance.

[Sally]

Ah, so they were infallible instead?

Here's something to consider. I have been researching a man recently whose criminal career spanned some 30 years. In all that time, the police never came near discovering who he really was. He lived - and died - under a pseudonym.

The police had him in custody numerous times, and I dare say some of them felt they knew him pretty well; yet his true identity, and the life that accompanied it, were never brought to light. He did such a good job of deceiving those around him that he's remained hidden until now.

He was able to do that because he was clever. He was an accomplished liar. You think that in the immensely difficult days following Kelly's death; amidst the dozens of men who came forward with information, the police couldn't have been taken in by a clever, accomplished liar?

Hundreds of posts into this thread and we're still no further on.

[Ben]

Hutchinson was "interrogated" for the purpose of determining whether or not he was telling the truth, and Abberline makes that very clear in his report. The interrogation had nothing to do with any consideration that he might have been responsible for the crime, or else he'd have said "I have interrogated him this evening, and I am of the opinion that he was not Jack the Ripper". It was never on the cards for the simple reason that an 1888 police force would not have entertained for one minute the idea of the real Jack the Ripper strolling into a cop shop and requesting an interview. This has nothing to do with them being "imbecilic" and everything to do with their lack of experience with serial killers.

Was Violenia ever suspected of being the ripper despite being considered a bogus witness, and despite claiming to have been the last witness to have seen the victim (Chapman, in that case) alive? No. So let's not apply double standards.

In any case, it would have been absolutely impossible for Hutchinson to have satisfied Abberline of his innocence in such a short space of time, and in the absence of any opportunity to investigate or verify his claims. Hence, if the possibility of guilt was entertained at the time of that interrogation, there were important investigations to conduct, and Abberline would certainly have made reference to them in his report, i.e. "I think he's telling the truth, but I can't yet eliminate - or get anywhere close to eliminating - the possibility that he's a serial mutilator".

Did that happen? No, because he was never considered a suspect.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I notice that I was responsible for initially mentioning Cross back when we were getting bogged down in exquisite peaked caps, so my apologies for the erroneous accusation (and you're off the hook again, Sally!).

I have no problem with you having a conviction with regard to Toppy and the signatures, providing you don't present it as fact (and on the wrong thread).

Hi Richard,

Mrs Long was at the crime scene, so was Cadoche. so were the three men leaving the club near Church passage..are these suspects...?

No, because their evidence continued to be taken seriously by the police, they presented their evidence in advance of the inquest as opposed to "waiting" for three days, and they had legitimate reasons for being where they were at the time.

one tires of the same ''I am right , your wrong'' attitude

And yet in that last post you made clear your conviction that I was wrong and you were right.

All the best,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

I would argue that it had nothing to do with the police's lack of experience with serial killers. It had to do with the fact that Hutch (by his own admission) knew the victim and was the last one to see her alive. Serial killer and the cops being deceived needn't enter into it at all. The same thing would hold true today.

You are stating the idea that the police would never have entertained the idea of him as a serial killer as fact when in reality that is simply your opinion.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

It had to do with the fact that Hutch (by his own admission) knew the victim and was the last one to see her alive.

Not "by his own admission", but rather according to his own claim. The distinction is a crucial one. It's only an "admission" if it were true, and the purpose of the interrogation was to determine whether it was true or not. There is no "fact" that "he knew the victim" and was "the last one to see her alive". There is only his claim to that effect, and claims can be genuine or bogus. Unfortunately for the police, they were deluged with the latter category - time-wasters seeking money or publicity, and the intention behind any interrogation was to determine whether or not the witness in question was yet another one of those.

Violenia was one such bogus witness, and yet despite his claim to have been the last to see Chapman alive, there is no evidence that he was ever considered a suspect. Same with Hutchinson.

All the best,
Ben